Title: The Corporation Directors: Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbot Release Year: 2003
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The Corporation argues that the structure we have in place for large companies is detrimental to society as a whole. Not only are they destroying our environment, but they’re degrading our social lives and stealing from us in a variety of ways. Although corporations have in the past been thought of as the driving force in today’s society, the film labels them “plunderers of the earth” and discusses how our views on them must shift in order for us to structure a sustainable society.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film begins by giving a brief history of corporations and discussing where they came from. After the industrial revolution, machines began replacing men in every industry. The streamlining of tasks and innovative new mechanisms became key to creating products competitively, and those who continued to produce things the way they had always been created, via skilled craftsman, were soon put out of business. The game was: who could create the most products with the least man hours while making a profit. The definition of a corporation, according to the film, is a group of people organized to make money.
More recently, with the “invention” of the Limited Liability Corporation, companies have been given even more free reign to figure out ways of creating profit. The passing of the 14th amendment was another important event in the history of corporations. Although originally designed to cut down on discrimination, giving equal rights to every citizen regardless of race, lawyers also found loopholes in the law that allowed companies to be considered a person as well. This meant that every right had by a human being would also be shared by companies. This allowed companies even more wiggle room, as they now had the “right” to do all sorts of new things. All of this was, of course, aimed at gathering even more wealth.
The film then goes on to show how all of this freedom has allowed companies to externalize costs. Externalization is a term used to describe how corporations make others “pay” for the products they create. Nike, for instance, externalizes cost of labor by producing their clothing and sportswear at factories in Bangladesh. Because the average wage there is so low, they can afford to produce products at a very low cost... at the expense of the workers in the factories. This allows Nike to produce products at 3/10th of the price that the consumer sees them on the shelves. Another area which corporations can externalize cost is on the consumers themselves. The corporation which made DDT, Monsanto, didn’t do any health research before selling the product. Because of this, the damage to the consumers health was where the cost of the product was externalized to. Harm to animals is another area where costs have been externalized. The meat packing industry has a very dirty history of animal abuse, and the dairy industry’s foray into hormones such as bST (again produced by Monsanto) which lead to great suffering by cows all across the country are a few examples of how costs can be moved from onto other things. Harm to the biosphere is an obvious one the film mentions as well; every biosphere on the planet has been in decline in recent years.
Another problem the corporations have caused has been directed towards our society as a whole. Marketing, for instance has exploited the not fully developed minds of children in order to sell more toys. Brands have now crept into our everyday life; Disney has epitomized this with their town of Celebration, which is run entirely by them. One cannot drive down the freeway (a sustainability problem in itself) without seeing billboards telling them that to be a complete person, they must have this product. All of this degradation is done so that the potential consumer will feel that they need these products to be whole.
The media is another part of the matrix allowing these corporations to continue destroying the earth in so many ways. The story about Monsanto’s bST, for instance, was initially broken by a FOX news team. After setting up their piece educating the public about the damaging effects of the hormone, however, FOX executives made the team reword their piece so that it didn’t incriminate Monsanto. At one point a FOX executive told the team that “the news is what we say it is”, and not necessarily the truth, and tried to bribe the investigators. When they took FOX to court, it was determined that in fact falsifying the news isn’t against the law.
This brings up another part of the matrix keeping all of this in place: lobbying. Because corporations have access to so much capitol built up through externalization of cost, they can afford to donate tons of money to campaign funds. This allows them to “buy” politicians, who then allow laws to be passed such as the ones allowing corporations to have the same rights as humans and the one stating that news doesn’t have to be true, etc.
The power of corporations was at one point compared by Howard Zinn to be like that of a fascist regime: control over government, media, products, jobs, and every other aspect of our lives. The illusion that we have a choice in the matter is simply that… an illusion.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
One thing which gives the corporations so much power is their legal status as a human being. This being a fact, it is interesting to consider the type of “person” that these corporations are. As the film shows, they would love for us to think of them as a charming, loving and kind individual. At one point there are a few scenes, in which random individuals are asked what type of person certain companies are, and their answers exactly what the corporations would love to hear; their descriptions are filled with characteristics held by only the highest quality individual. Throughout the film however, a case is being made for corporation’s insanity. Because they repeatedly lie, cheat, steal and attempt to better themselves at the expense of others and the environment, the film argues that they fit the psychiatric description of a psychopath. This was, I felt, the most compelling piece in the film; if corporations want to be treated like humans we should let them, albeit they be treated the same way that humans are if they display specific characteristics. The film makes an excellent case for their mental instability, and as such it seems that they could be tried in a court of law and found to be insane, and thus removed from the streets as dangerous to the general public.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I felt that the film did an excellent job of making its points, and there is very little I disagreed with. The only bits I found un-intriguing where whenever they made a pathos based argument, as I generally find them misleading and unconvincing. The scene in which a mother is making a case against the toy industries advertising, for instance, I found pretty weak; why not just take away the kid’s TV and make him play outside the way I did when I was raised? My parents didn’t find it particularly difficult to deny me the right to play video games, watch TV, go to the movies and otherwise expose myself to corporate media. This is an example of bad parenting, not of corporations’ unstoppable exploitation of children.
What additional information does the film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?
Interestingly enough, the film prompted me to search out the legal definition of a psychopath and what laws are in place for dealing with them. It turns out that there are laws in place in other countries, such as the UK, whereby psychopaths can be locked up simply after a psychological diagnosis. In the US, on the other hand, a psychopath must exhibit his psychopathic tendencies by committing a crime; only after this can they be locked up.
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
Although one might refrain from showing this film to young children simply because of its complexity, this film has something to offer for everybody. Because of the diverse way in which it approaches arguments, calling upon all three appeals incredibly effectively, it is capable of reaching audiences of most ages and of all intelligences.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film doesn’t do much in the way of showing the viewer what they can do, aside from make educated choices when purchasing. It does show, however, that some companies are becoming more socially responsible. The CEO of a carpet company, for instance, was shown discussing how he has plans to go as green as possible without any sort of monetary incentive but instead through his own moral purpose. He states that he has made his company 1/3rd greener in the past few years, and doesn’t plan to stop there; he plans to continue until he has become completely environmentally sustainable. Another point of intervention mentioned was the Bechtel vs. the Bolivian People fight over water. During this incident, the Bolivian government tried to get its citizens to adopt a new water system set up by Bechtel which would increase the price of water there to approximately 1/3rd of the annual average wage. The people rioted, and wound up winning the fight; they now have to pay a fair amount for water.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
The film could have done more to determine which companies are being social responsible and which ones aren’t. It gave the example of the carpet company, but very few others. Instead of showing how every company is awful, it could have compared larger, unsustainable companies to smaller ones (if they do indeed exist) that are using sustainable practices, thus empowering the viewer to make more educated choices about purchases and helping them make a change themselves.
Directors: Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbot
Release Year: 2003
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The Corporation argues that the structure we have in place for large companies is detrimental to society as a whole. Not only are they destroying our environment, but they’re degrading our social lives and stealing from us in a variety of ways. Although corporations have in the past been thought of as the driving force in today’s society, the film labels them “plunderers of the earth” and discusses how our views on them must shift in order for us to structure a sustainable society.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film begins by giving a brief history of corporations and discussing where they came from. After the industrial revolution, machines began replacing men in every industry. The streamlining of tasks and innovative new mechanisms became key to creating products competitively, and those who continued to produce things the way they had always been created, via skilled craftsman, were soon put out of business. The game was: who could create the most products with the least man hours while making a profit. The definition of a corporation, according to the film, is a group of people organized to make money.
More recently, with the “invention” of the Limited Liability Corporation, companies have been given even more free reign to figure out ways of creating profit. The passing of the 14th amendment was another important event in the history of corporations. Although originally designed to cut down on discrimination, giving equal rights to every citizen regardless of race, lawyers also found loopholes in the law that allowed companies to be considered a person as well. This meant that every right had by a human being would also be shared by companies. This allowed companies even more wiggle room, as they now had the “right” to do all sorts of new things. All of this was, of course, aimed at gathering even more wealth.
The film then goes on to show how all of this freedom has allowed companies to externalize costs. Externalization is a term used to describe how corporations make others “pay” for the products they create. Nike, for instance, externalizes cost of labor by producing their clothing and sportswear at factories in Bangladesh. Because the average wage there is so low, they can afford to produce products at a very low cost... at the expense of the workers in the factories. This allows Nike to produce products at 3/10th of the price that the consumer sees them on the shelves. Another area which corporations can externalize cost is on the consumers themselves. The corporation which made DDT, Monsanto, didn’t do any health research before selling the product. Because of this, the damage to the consumers health was where the cost of the product was externalized to. Harm to animals is another area where costs have been externalized. The meat packing industry has a very dirty history of animal abuse, and the dairy industry’s foray into hormones such as bST (again produced by Monsanto) which lead to great suffering by cows all across the country are a few examples of how costs can be moved from onto other things. Harm to the biosphere is an obvious one the film mentions as well; every biosphere on the planet has been in decline in recent years.
Another problem the corporations have caused has been directed towards our society as a whole. Marketing, for instance has exploited the not fully developed minds of children in order to sell more toys. Brands have now crept into our everyday life; Disney has epitomized this with their town of Celebration, which is run entirely by them. One cannot drive down the freeway (a sustainability problem in itself) without seeing billboards telling them that to be a complete person, they must have this product. All of this degradation is done so that the potential consumer will feel that they need these products to be whole.
The media is another part of the matrix allowing these corporations to continue destroying the earth in so many ways. The story about Monsanto’s bST, for instance, was initially broken by a FOX news team. After setting up their piece educating the public about the damaging effects of the hormone, however, FOX executives made the team reword their piece so that it didn’t incriminate Monsanto. At one point a FOX executive told the team that “the news is what we say it is”, and not necessarily the truth, and tried to bribe the investigators. When they took FOX to court, it was determined that in fact falsifying the news isn’t against the law.
This brings up another part of the matrix keeping all of this in place: lobbying. Because corporations have access to so much capitol built up through externalization of cost, they can afford to donate tons of money to campaign funds. This allows them to “buy” politicians, who then allow laws to be passed such as the ones allowing corporations to have the same rights as humans and the one stating that news doesn’t have to be true, etc.
The power of corporations was at one point compared by Howard Zinn to be like that of a fascist regime: control over government, media, products, jobs, and every other aspect of our lives. The illusion that we have a choice in the matter is simply that… an illusion.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
One thing which gives the corporations so much power is their legal status as a human being. This being a fact, it is interesting to consider the type of “person” that these corporations are. As the film shows, they would love for us to think of them as a charming, loving and kind individual. At one point there are a few scenes, in which random individuals are asked what type of person certain companies are, and their answers exactly what the corporations would love to hear; their descriptions are filled with characteristics held by only the highest quality individual. Throughout the film however, a case is being made for corporation’s insanity. Because they repeatedly lie, cheat, steal and attempt to better themselves at the expense of others and the environment, the film argues that they fit the psychiatric description of a psychopath. This was, I felt, the most compelling piece in the film; if corporations want to be treated like humans we should let them, albeit they be treated the same way that humans are if they display specific characteristics. The film makes an excellent case for their mental instability, and as such it seems that they could be tried in a court of law and found to be insane, and thus removed from the streets as dangerous to the general public.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I felt that the film did an excellent job of making its points, and there is very little I disagreed with. The only bits I found un-intriguing where whenever they made a pathos based argument, as I generally find them misleading and unconvincing. The scene in which a mother is making a case against the toy industries advertising, for instance, I found pretty weak; why not just take away the kid’s TV and make him play outside the way I did when I was raised? My parents didn’t find it particularly difficult to deny me the right to play video games, watch TV, go to the movies and otherwise expose myself to corporate media. This is an example of bad parenting, not of corporations’ unstoppable exploitation of children.
What additional information does the film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?
Interestingly enough, the film prompted me to search out the legal definition of a psychopath and what laws are in place for dealing with them. It turns out that there are laws in place in other countries, such as the UK, whereby psychopaths can be locked up simply after a psychological diagnosis. In the US, on the other hand, a psychopath must exhibit his psychopathic tendencies by committing a crime; only after this can they be locked up.
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
Although one might refrain from showing this film to young children simply because of its complexity, this film has something to offer for everybody. Because of the diverse way in which it approaches arguments, calling upon all three appeals incredibly effectively, it is capable of reaching audiences of most ages and of all intelligences.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film doesn’t do much in the way of showing the viewer what they can do, aside from make educated choices when purchasing. It does show, however, that some companies are becoming more socially responsible. The CEO of a carpet company, for instance, was shown discussing how he has plans to go as green as possible without any sort of monetary incentive but instead through his own moral purpose. He states that he has made his company 1/3rd greener in the past few years, and doesn’t plan to stop there; he plans to continue until he has become completely environmentally sustainable. Another point of intervention mentioned was the Bechtel vs. the Bolivian People fight over water. During this incident, the Bolivian government tried to get its citizens to adopt a new water system set up by Bechtel which would increase the price of water there to approximately 1/3rd of the annual average wage. The people rioted, and wound up winning the fight; they now have to pay a fair amount for water.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
The film could have done more to determine which companies are being social responsible and which ones aren’t. It gave the example of the carpet company, but very few others. Instead of showing how every company is awful, it could have compared larger, unsustainable companies to smaller ones (if they do indeed exist) that are using sustainable practices, thus empowering the viewer to make more educated choices about purchases and helping them make a change themselves.